Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
Uh-huh. You really think the drugs purchased in Las Vegas will stay in Las Vegas? Geez, you're naive.
"I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating departments even if they're constitutionally sound. Aren't you?"
I'm with you, Bobby. Let's start by eliminating the BATFags and the DEA, for openers. Then we can eliminate the Labor Department, the EPA, "Education" department, Commerce, Social Insecurity, Energy, Interior, HHS, Homeland "security" and so forth. Remove custome, border patrol and INS and set them up as they once were. Then tear down all those buildings (along with the UN) and sow the ground with salt. If we can eliminate at least 90 percent of FedGov, I will consider that a good start!
If you recall, we tried Prohibition and it didn't work. We're stuck with the "enclave of drunkards".
That doesn't mean we must extend that to an "enclave of potheads" or an "enclave of coke addicts".
Pot is bad for you, but no worse than many legal substances. Getting drunk all the time is probably worse for you than smoking pot all the time. The law is inconsistent.
Where'd I say that, paulsen.
Read what I'd wrote again for chrissakes, get it straight & stay on topic man.
If you must comment on anything I post at least have the courtesy of responding to what was actually said by direct any & all criticism(s) where they're merited. In the context of what I'd said that'd be the citizens of Las Vegas *&* NV pols, IF, things went the way I suspect they could in the future, 'k?
If we cannot have freedom -- as the signers intended us to have as stated in the Constitution for The United States of America -- for whatever reason(s) however righteous or convoluted and if said freedom(s) cannot be practiced in ones own damned home as is often the case today on this ONE issue?
Then let there be a *place* people who DO enjoy behavior(s) [read: smoke rope] outside the mainstream to go for venting their shtick & let it be up to the citizen taxpayers of such a place be the ones deciding the matter.
Capiche.
Now you may mark it down in your little black book I'm -- albeit naively -- behind such a place being "a" Las Vegas.
If you don't care for my opin, tough.
Should a national referendum ever come up where we've the chance to cast our vote on the issue?
You paulsen may negate my "Yes" vote; but, that's the best you'll do, pal.
robert?
Has your [in]famous tunnel-vision finally caused you to become completely blind.
...geez. ;^)
Have to admit I didn't care for your approach in the beginning.
One day the pure white light of stupidity struck me - the defender(s) of our Constitutional freedoms -- as written -- had better damned well be as mean as a junkyard dog. Lest those who'd *steal* 'em from all good men & women *succeed* and when it happens it's slowly *&* incrementally.
I've learned more from you through example than the next 1,000 posters & 10,000 others in the real world, combined.
Never change.
You & the few remaining like you are the last of a kind, when you're gone we'd all better kiss our butts goodbye.
"-- so I gotta be fast.."
HA!!
Yea, guess you do.
My only concern's you'll throwout that old back trying to move so fast.
"Unfortunately, I'm loosing a lot of races these days to FR's young whippersnapper prohibitionists."
Not to worry, the youngsters will come around when they one day get bit on the ass by one of their prohibitions.
It's inevitable.
In the meantime good people suffer in one way or the other, the Liberal-Socialists profit off the "oppression" and time marches onward toward God only knows what.
"-- It's hell to get old."
You got that right.
...it ain't for sissies. ;^)
Me -- mean as a junkyard dog? -- And here I thought my new, kinder, gentler persona was finally coming through since the last time I was banned.
Anyway, thanks, and believe me - I've learned a lot from folks like you on FR.. -- And probably more from my opponents.
As you say, the road to serfdom is happening "slowly *&* incrementally", and those here who advocate majority rule are greasing the way.
While defending our Constitution, yea, and rightfully so.
"-- And here I thought my new, kinder, gentler persona was finally coming through..."
HA!!!
I'm fairly certain you sincerely believe that too, huh. {g}
Sorry tp but Bush has the "kinder - gentler" concession all wrapped up.
"...since the last time I was banned."
You got banned, when?
Why?
Explains why I hadn't seen your posts.
Yet the old man let ya come back, huh.
Well FWIW he must *like* you, tp, you're ahead of the curve.
He's not budged one iota on a few other banees who're damned good patriots.
Go figure.
"Anyway, thanks, and believe me - I've learned a lot from folks like you on FR.. -- And probably more from my opponents."
Used to be a time not too long ago when it looked as if this one place c/would go into the history books, if for no other reason then how it fostered a special enlightenment unavailable anywhere else for forum participants.
Of course banning -- for any reason -- took care of the "diversity" {spit} which made the atmosphere so charged, conducive to learning.
Too bad.
Like oppressive "laws" of any stripe, we all lose.
"As you say, the road to serfdom is happening "slowly *&* incrementally", and those here who advocate majority rule are greasing the way."
I'm afraid so.
Can't argue with how things "should be" anymore, must argue from the POV of how things are else there's more than enough deaf ears for thoughtful, heartfelt words to fall.
Can't speak for you but doing so often makes me feel I'm playing jester to the clowns.
Or as a wise old dead white guy once said, "A Republic Madam, IF you can hold it." ~or some-such malarkey. ;^)
Forgive them, Lord.
...for they know not what they do.
I'm not saying it wouldn't happen. I'm sure it would.
I'm also not saying that I don't care.
I'm saying that in many instances it is not a federal issue.
The Federal government enumerates those rigths, which I believe puts a greater burden on the states in abridging them. Just speaking for myself here.
When it comes to illegal drugs, I consider those as the same as anthrax or nuke. They offer absolutely zero interest to the individual or the country.
However, guns offer a solid self defense ability. They can save your life. So. I say, booze and cigs need to stay legal because they are so ingrained, and all the other illegal drugs need to stay illegal since legalizing them will only add to more 'accepted' usage drugs that are more severe life-altering from use.
I thought I was on topic. When you said, "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas", weren't you implying that "Drug use in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas"?
If not, then perhaps you can clarify that for me.
But it would soon be, as my alcohol example showed. Why do you insist that we go down that road? We both know it's a dead end.
The Bill of Rights, when written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the states, only applied to the newly-formed federal government. In other words, these rights were protected from federal infringement.
The states could, and did, infringe on them. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the U.S. Supreme Court started applying some of the Bill of Rights to the states.
You do realize anyone driving under the influence of pot is an impaired driver, just like being under the influence of alcohol. Same delayed responses & poor decision making.
"I was a W-5... served at Ord, Benning, Campbell, Lewis, and Roberts..."
Dear Sir Francis Dashwood,
I've waited long time to respond to your post. I wanted to make sure I was not typing in haste.
First I want to thank you for your service to our country. Second I wish to remind you that your oath to defend our constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic did not end with your term of service. I've read your posts quite frequently on these threads, and we have engaged in some debate directly from time to time.
The powers that the Federal Government has, are only those powers that the people have enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America. Those powers are limited and few. We as a people can not transfer powers to a government that we do not collectively hold as individuals. You would do well to learn that I am not your keeper, nor you mine. We are no more than the keeper of ourselves. What I, or you do that does not infringe on the rights of the other, is neither of our business.
Your comments on this thread that drew me out from my normal lurking position, were hateful, and directed against a fellow serviceman of the USMC.
Please do not waste your time responding to this post, I've typed this only as a FYI.
01
Please show me where I said otherwise.
Apparently.
"When you said, 'What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas', weren't you implying that 'Drug use in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas'?"
I wasn't implying, anything.
The LV citizens visa vi through their Jaycees & NV politicians, OTOH, very well might be implying it in the [near?] future, though.
Plausible.
"If not, then perhaps you can clarify that for me."
"LV Jaycees like to say, 'What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas.'"
There.
...clarified.
Huh? "... that we do not collectively hold as individuals? Gobbledygook.
We gave the federal government the power to regulate commerce among the several states. "We" did not have that power as individuals. "We" did not have that power collectively. Our state did not have that power.
So I have no idea what you're talking about.
"What I, or you do that does not infringe on the rights of the other, is neither of our business."
Your use of drugs infringes on my right to raise my children in a drug-free environment. Unless you're saying I don't have that right or that your right trumps mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.